[Gina]

To Take or Not To Take... Revlimid Maintenance

by Gina on Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:38 pm

After being diagnosed with multiple myeloma in November 2009, I underwent the velcade-doxil-dex treatment and radiation to my humerus, pelvis, and spine followed by ASCT in April 2010.
My hemtologist-oncologist wants me to stay on a Revlimid maintenance treatment. She initially had me on 10mg, but my counts went too low. I've since been on 5mg off and on again. I'm really battling with whether or not I should continue to try this treatment. My doctor seems to think that my body will rebound and I'll be able to increase the dosage. The studies I have read do not show an overwhelming positive response to the drug.
I'd like to hear from anyone who has tried the Revlimid maintenance treatment to see what your experiences have been or what your doctors have said about this treatment.

[Perseverence]

Re: To Take or Not To Take... Revlimid Maintenance

by Perseverence on Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:13 am

3 studies were presented at this year's ASH meeting that showed that Revlimid doubled time to progression from about 2 years to about 4 years, These studies were among the most talked about and, for many oncologists, confirmed Revlimid maintenance as the standard of care.

[Lin]

Re: To Take or Not To Take... Revlimid Maintenance

by Lin on Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:20 pm

Dear Gina,
My myeloma specialist and my oncologist both agreed that I should go on Revlimid maintenance. I was taking 15mg of Revlimid daily and my WBC went below normal. After several months the WBC went back into the normal range, and last month my immunofixation test was negative. Before that it had been faint positive.
The very best of luck to you.

[Gina]

Re: To Take or Not To Take... Revlimid Maintenance

by Gina on Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:21 pm

I have read the studies and I'm still riding the fence. My biggest problem with this is...there have been many people with multiple myeloma who have been in remission without relapse for 10 years. So, how do you know the people at the 4 year mark are not just in that group that would not have relapsed anyway? What is the evidence that supports they would have relapsed without the Revlimid?